According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that, as long as the plaintiff did not refund the value-added tax until the closing date of argument of the court below, the amount of the plaintiff's actual repair cost is the amount of damage, the plaintiff paid as the repair cost, and the value-added tax included in the repair cost, for which the plaintiff claimed damages against the defendant, can be deducted or refunded at the time of settlement of the value-added tax, and thus, should be excluded from the scope of damage caused by the defendant's tort.

In general, in cases where goods owned by a victim are damaged due to a tort of another person and thus requiring repair, if the victim bears the value-added tax required for repair, the victim may claim compensation against the perpetrator for damages, including the value-added tax. However, in cases where the repair of a business operator, who is a taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act, falls under the input tax amount under Article 17 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and its repair constitutes an input tax amount under which it was used or is to be used for his own business, so the victim may be entitled to deduct or refund the value-added tax. Therefore, the above value-added tax shall not be actually returned to the victim's burden. Therefore, the victim cannot claim damages equivalent to the above value-added tax. In such cases, the above value-added tax amount should not be deducted from the amount of damages of the victim, unless there are any special circumstances. If the victim can deduct or get a refund of the value-added tax, if the victim can receive it as compensation for damages, then the victim cannot make a refund or refund due to the offender's.

According to the records, among damages equivalent to the repair cost of the amount of KRW 7,480,00 which the court below acknowledged in accordance with the plaintiff's argument, it is clear that the value-added tax equivalent to KRW 680,00 is included in the repair cost (the compensation amount was limited to 60%, which is the defendant's liability ratio). On the other hand, the accident of this case occurred while the plaintiff leases the middle term to the non-party joint defendant defendant defendant defendant 1 in the court of first instance, and the plaintiff himself claims that the middle term of this case is operated for the plaintiff's business. Therefore, it appears that the middle term of this case is used for the plaintiff's business. Therefore, the court below should examine whether the above value-added tax amount included in the repair cost of this case can be deducted or refunded as the input tax amount, and determine whether the above value-added tax amount constitutes the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the tort of this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation.

There is reason to point this out.

Therefore, among the parts against the Defendant regarding repair costs, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)